Tax Controversy Update

NEW IRS LINK FOR IDENTITY THEFT

2012-01-16T10:53:00.000-06:00

The IRS has taken numerous steps to combat identity theft and protect taxpayers. The IRS is continually looking at ways to increase data security and protect taxpayers' identities with assistance from the IRS Identity Protection Specialized Unit.

Here is a link for more information.

Special Procedure as to Expert Testimony

2011-09-21T13:26:00.000-05:00

With the agreement of the parties, the Tax Court directed the experts to testify concurrently. To implement the concurrent testimony, the Court sat at a large table in the middle of the courtroom with all three experts, each of whom was under oath. The parties' counsel sat a few feet away. The Court then engaged the experts in a three-way conversation about ultimate issues of fact. Counsel could, but did not, object to any of the experts' testimony. When necessary, the Court directed the discussion and focused on matters that the Court considered important to resolve. By engaging in this conversational testimony, the experts were able and allowed to speak to each other, to ask questions, and to probe weaknesses in any other expert's testimony. The discussion that followed was highly focused, highly structured, and directed by the Court. See Rovakat LLC et al. v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2011-225 (Judge Laro). See the opinion here.

Watch the Statute of Limitations

2011-07-25T07:26:00.000-05:00

In tax controversy matters is it important to be aware of the statute of limitations. Set forth below are some basic rules for dealing with the statute of limitations (SOL). The references are to the applicable sections of the Internal Revenue Code.

A. General Rules

1. SOL - The IRS has 3 years from the time the tax return is filed to assess. Section 6501.

2. Notice and Demand- Upon an assessment being made, the IRS has 60 days to notify the taxpayer of the assessment and demand the amount assessed. Section 6303(a).

B. Determination of the SOL

1. Due Date - The due date of an individual return is April 15th (or the following Monday if April 15th falls on a Saturday or Sunday). Section 6072(a).

2. When a Return is Deemed Filed - Sections 6501(b) and 7502(a) (2).

a. A return filed on or before the due date is deemed filed as of the due date.

b. A return filed after the due date is deemed filed as of the postmark date.

c. Quarterly returns are deemed filed on April 15th of the following year.

3. Returns Mailed to the Wrong IRS Service Center - A return must be filed at the service center where the taxpayer has been instructed to file the return, or otherwise probably will not be considered filed, thus causing the SOL to be indefinite. Section 6091.

4. Unsigned Returns - Unsigned returns are considered not filed with an indefinite SOL, and the IRS has no duty to alert the taxpayer of an unfiled return. Section 6061.

5. Fraudulent and Unfiled Returns - With intentionally false and fraudulent and unfiled tax returns, the SOL is indefinite. Section 6501.

6. Partners - Late partnership returns do not affect the filing date of partners' individual tax returns. Section 6229.

C. Suspension of SOL with 90-Day Letters and Tax Court Cases

1. 90-day Letters - The SOL is suspended from the date of issuance of a 90-day letter, and during that period the IRS cannot assess the deficiency. Section 6503(a)(1).

2. Pending Tax Court Case - No assessment can be made during the time a Tax Court case is pending. The SOL is suspended during this period. Section 6213(a) and 6503(a)(1).

3. Final Tax Court Decision

a. Tax Court decisions are not final until the appeal period has expired. The time to make an assessment is suspended during this period. Section 7481.

b. The appeal period runs 90 days after the Tax Court decision is entered. Section 7483.

c. The SOL is suspended an additional 60 days after the appeal period ends. Section 6503(a)(1).

D. Collection SOL - The SOL on collection of an assessment runs 10 years from the assessment date. Section 6502(a).

E. Criminal Cases - The SOL for prosecution of criminal cases is 6 years.

Make Sure Your Clients Have Substantiation to Prove Their Deductions

2011-07-22T14:30:00.000-05:00

In the recent case of Stroff v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-80, the taxpayer was granted a partial deduction for expenses. Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code allows a deduction for all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. The taxpayer has the burden to maintain records sufficient to substantiate the amounts and purposes of deductions claimed.

The Court allowed the partial deduction based on the Cohan rule. The Court stated: "Under the Cohan rule, in the event that a taxpayer establishes that he or she has incurred a deductible expense but is unable to substantiate the precise amount, the Court may approximate the amount of the expense. Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930). The Court must have sufficient evidence upon which to make a reasonable estimate to apply the Cohan rule."

We are seeing more and more cases where deductions are being disallowed because the taxpayer does not have the substantiation required by Section 274(d) of the Internal Revenue Code.

AUDIT RECONSIDERATION

2011-06-09T13:54:00.000-05:00

Generally, once the IRS makes an assessment the taxpayer must pay the assessment and file suit in order to challenge the assessment. The taxpayer, however, does have other options rather than paying the tax. One option is to request audit reconsideration. Audit reconsideration is available when there has been a communication problem between the taxpayer and the IRS, or the taxpayer has chosen to ignore a statutory notice of deficiency. In some cases, the IRS has permitted audit reconsideration of returns after collection has begun. It is important to gather as much information as possible about the year in question to show a need for audit reconsideration. A taxpayer should always ask for audit reconsideration. The worst that can happen is the IRS denies audit reconsideration. If this happens, the taxpayer should ask for an appeals conference.

The following three requirements must be met to receive audit reconsideration after collection has begun:

1. The taxpayer has changed addresses since the original tax return was filed; therefore, the deficiency notice was not sent to the taxpayer's new address.

2. The taxpayer has not received any notification from the IRS of the assessment or as to how the assessment was determined prior to receipt of the bill.

3. The taxpayer has not had an opportunity to submit any required substantiation to tell his side of the story.

Reasons for Audit Reconsideration Request (IRM 4.13.1.3):

1. The taxpayer did not appear for the audit.

2. The taxpayer moved and did not receive the correspondence from the IRS.

3. The taxpayer has new documentation to present.

4. The taxpayer disagrees with an assessment from an audit of the taxpayer's return and has additional information to be considered.

5. The taxpayer disagrees with an assessment created under the authority of Section 6020(b).

6. The taxpayer has been denied tax credits such as EITC claimed during prior examination.

Old Letterhead and Excessive Postage

2011-05-19T07:09:00.000-05:00

Below is the letterhead from a recent IRS letter. I did not know we still had District Directors. Also, is a postage mark on a large envelope from an agency, not the IRS this time, that contained a two page letter. The postage was $1.28 for the two page letter.

IRS Request Withdrawal of Collection Due Process Hearing - Before the Hearing

2011-04-29T14:02:00.000-05:00

Recently in letters from IRS Appeals advising the taxpayer that a hearing has been scheduled, the IRS is enclosing Form 12256, WIthdrawal of Request for Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing. We do not understand the purpose of enclosing this form. It is confusing to the taxpayer. The cover letter from Appeals states:

"If you no longer want to pursue the CDP Hearing, I have enclosed Form 12256 for you to sign and withdraw your request. You can fax or mail this back to me prior to the deadline date".

We see no reason for the IRS to include this form. Appeals can certainly discuss a withdrawal with the taxpayer during the hearing. It seems that Appeals should be trying to help the taxpayer, rather than seeking a withdrawal of the hearing request before the hearing takes place. While it is only page, we doubt that many taxpayers sign it. Therefore, it is just a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Will the IRS Listen?

2011-04-29T06:24:00.000-05:00

Here is an article titled "How to talk so the IRS will listen". This article give guidance on how to deal with the IRS.

How Long Should Records Be Kept?

2011-04-13T06:25:00.000-05:00

In IRS Tax Tip 2011-71 the IRS has given advise on how long to keep records for tax purposes. The IRS says the following:

1. Normally, tax records should be kept for three years.
2. Some documents — such as records relating to a home purchase or sale, stock transactions, IRA and business or rental property — should be kept longer.
3. In most cases, the IRS does not require you to keep records in any special manner. Generally speaking, however, you should keep any and all documents that may have an impact on your federal tax return.
4. Records you should keep include bills, credit card and other receipts, invoices, mileage logs, canceled, imaged or substitute checks, proofs of payment, and any other records to support deductions or credits you claim on your return.
5. For more information on what kinds of records to keep, see IRS Publication 552, Recordkeeping for Individuals, which is available on the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov/.

It is getting more difficult to obtain deductions in an audit, at IRS Appeals, or in court, if records are not available to prove the deduction. Everyone should keep detailed records and this is especially true for automobile and travel expenses.

How the IRS Will Operate If There Is A Shutdown

2011-04-08T21:00:00.002-05:00

Here is what the IRS Operations Will Be During A Government Shutdown

If the federal government shuts down, IRS operations will be severely limited. However, the underlying tax law remains in effect, and all taxpayers should continue to meet their tax obligations as normal.

Individuals should keep filing their tax returns with the IRS and are required to do so by April 18 unless they obtain a six-month extension. The IRS will be accepting all tax returns. Once they’ve been accepted, the IRS will generally process and issue refunds for electronically filed individual returns.

Individuals are urged to file electronically, because most of these returns are processed automatically and should not be delayed. Because of limited IRS staffing, paper returns will be accepted, but will not be processed in the event of a government shutdown and taxpayers who file paper returns will experience a delay in receiving their refunds. Limited telephone customer service functions will remain available, but IRS walk-in taxpayer assistance centers will be closed.

While the government is closed, people with appointments related to examinations (audits), collection, Appeals or Taxpayer Advocate cases should assume their meetings are cancelled. IRS personnel will reschedule those meetings at a later date.

Here are some basic steps for taxpayers to follow in case of a governnment shutdown:

How Does This Affect Me? What Do I Do?

• You should continue to file and pay taxes as normal.
• The April 18, 2011, tax deadline for filing the 1040 series of tax returns remains in effect.
• Individuals filing the 1040 series of returns can still request a six-month filing extension to Oct. 17 by filing Form 4868. Taxpayers who request a filing extension must still make their tax payments by April 18, 2011.
• The quarterly estimated tax payment due April 18 is unchanged.
• All other tax deadlines remain in effect, including those covering individuals, corporations, partnerships and employers. The regular payroll tax deadlines remain in effect as well.
• You can file your tax return electronically or on paper –– although the processing of paper returns will be delayed until full government operations resume. Payments accompanying paper tax returns will still be accepted as the IRS receives them.
• Tax refunds for most electronically filed returns will continue to be issued. Because of limited IRS staffing, taxpayers who file paper returns will experience a delay in receiving their refunds.
• Tax software companies, tax practitioners and Free File remain available to assist with taxes.
• State tax deadlines are not impacted by the federal government shutdown.

What Will Happen At The IRS If The Government Shuts Down?

Only the most basic functions will remain operating in light of the critical April 18 filing deadline.

Operations Available

During the Government Shutdown

Tax processing operations are continuing at this time for electronically filed 1040 series tax returns.

Tax refunds will be issued as returns are processed, so most tax refunds for electronically filed returns will be issued. Taxpayers should expect longer than normal delays for paper filed tax refunds. IRS e-file and Free File remain the best way of getting tax refunds quickly and are unaffected by the government shutdown.

Tax deposits and payments are being processed, both for electronic and paper tax returns. Taxpayers should continue to make these payments as normal.

The IRS will continue accepting all tax returns during this period. In addition to individual e-file, business e-file will remain open as well and refunds for business e-filers will continue.

For individual taxpayers seeking assistance, the regular 800-829-1040 telephone line remains open. However, this line will not accept calls unrelated to individual tax issues, and taxpayers should anticipate much longer wait times. As an alternative, taxpayers are strongly encouraged to use www.IRS.gov.

The IRS website, www.IRS.gov, will remain available, although some interactive features may not be available. ”Where’s My Refund” will remain available on the IRS website for people to check on the status of their tax refunds.

If people have already filed their return and the IRS has started processing their tax return, they generally will see no delays in their refunds being issued. The best source for information will be checking "Where's My Refund" at www.IRS.gov.

The IRS Free File partners will continue to accept and file tax returns.

Tax software companies will continue to accept and file tax returns.

The IRS Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program (VITA) and the Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Programs will remain open in many locations to offer free tax help for taxpayers who qualify. Many Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics will remain open.

Many automated IRS notices will continue to be mailed.

Operations Closed

Or Unavailable During a Government Shutdown

(Partial Listing)

Taxpayer Assistance Centers (TACs) where taxpayers walk-in for service will be closed. People with scheduled appointments during the government shutdown will have to reschedule.

While the government is closed, people with appointments related to examinations (audits), collection, Appeals or Taxpayer Advocate cases should assume their meetings are cancelled. IRS personnel will reschedule those meetings at a later date.

No live telephone assistance will be available for non-1040 series business taxpayers on the 800-829-4933 number.

No live telephone assistance will be available for exempt organizations, retirement plans administrators or governmental entities that use the 877-829-5500 number.

The phone number for victims of identity theft (800-908-4490) will not be available.

The IRS will not be working any paper correspondence during this period.

Most IRS legal counsel services will stop.

Information for Tax Practitioners

• The e-Help Desk will be available for e-file error reject code assistance only -- Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time.
• The Practitioner Priority Service line will not be available.
• Quick Alerts will be issued as necessary via the normal e-mail process.

Texas Clients of JK Harris & Co. to Get Refunds

2011-04-08T07:10:00.000-05:00

The Texas Attorney General has settled a lawsuit with JK Harris & Co. See article here.

The Dirty Dozen for 2011

2011-04-08T07:06:00.000-05:00

The IRS has released the 2011 Dirty Dozen Tax Scams. See the release here.

IRS Releases New Offer in Compromise Form

2011-04-08T07:00:00.000-05:00

The IRS has released a new offer in compromise form for doubt as to collectibility. The new Form 656 can be found here. The offer in compromise booklet has a new Form 433-A (OIC) to be used soley for an offer.

Change of Mailing Address for FOIA Requests

2011-03-23T15:00:00.000-05:00

The Internal Revenue Service has almost completed modernizing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act case processing with the implementation of AFOIA, Automated Freedom of Information Act.

Due to the volume of correspondence and payments the IRS receives, they have changed the FOIA mailing address. Effective April 1, 2011, the new address for all FOIA correspondence and payments is:

Internal Revenue Service
Disclosure Scanning Operation – Stop 93A
Post Office Box 621506
Atlanta, GA 30362-3006

AFOIA allows the IRS to centralize receipt of requests and electronically process and distribute them throughout the country.

Can the IRS Save on Postage?

2011-03-15T13:26:00.000-05:00

We recently received three envelopes from the IRS that measured 10 inches by 15 inches. Each envelope contained a one page letter. The postage on the envelopes was $00.88, $1.05, and $2.41. Is it really necessary to place a one page letter in such a large envelope and expend more than $00.44 for the postage? Regular postage would have saved $3.02.

IRS Announces New Effort to Help Struggling Taxpayers Get a Fresh Start; Major Changes Made to Lien Process

2011-02-24T15:29:00.000-06:00

WASHINGTON — In its latest effort to help struggling taxpayers, the Internal Revenue Service today announced a series of new steps to help people get a fresh start with their tax liabilities. See IR-2011-20

The goal is to help individuals and small businesses meet their tax obligations, without adding unnecessary burden to taxpayers. Specifically, the IRS is announcing new policies and programs to help taxpayers pay back taxes and avoid tax liens.

“We are making fundamental changes to our lien system and other collection tools that will help taxpayers and give them a fresh start,” IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said. “These steps are good for people facing tough times, and they reflect a responsible approach for the tax system.”

Today’s announcement centers on the IRS making important changes to its lien filing practices that will lessen the negative impact on taxpayers. The changes include:

• Significantly increasing the dollar threshold when liens are generally issued, resulting in fewer tax liens.

• Making it easier for taxpayers to obtain lien withdrawals after paying a tax bill.

• Withdrawing liens in most cases where a taxpayer enters into a Direct Debit Installment Agreement.

• Creating easier access to Installment Agreements for more struggling small businesses.

• Expanding a streamlined Offer in Compromise program to cover more taxpayers.

“These steps are in the best interest of both taxpayers and the tax system,” Shulman said. “People will have a better chance to stay current on their taxes and keep their financial house in order. We all benefit if that happens.”

This is another in a series of steps to help struggling taxpayers. In 2008, the IRS announced lien relief for people trying to refinance or sell a home. In 2009, the IRS added new flexibility for taxpayers facing payment or collection problems. And last year, the IRS held about 1,000 special open houses to help small businesses and individuals resolve tax issues with the Agency.

Today’s announcement comes after a review of collection operations which Shulman launched last year, as well as input from the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council and the National Taxpayer Advocate.

Tax Lien Thresholds

The IRS will significantly increase the dollar thresholds when liens are generally filed. The new dollar amount is in keeping with inflationary changes since the number was last revised. Currently, liens are automatically filed at certain dollar levels for people with past-due balances.

The IRS plans to review the results and impact of the lien threshold change in about a year.

A federal tax lien gives the IRS a legal claim to a taxpayer’s property for the amount of an unpaid tax debt. Filing a Notice of Federal Tax Lien is necessary to establish priority rights against certain other creditors. Usually the government is not the only creditor to whom the taxpayer owes money.

A lien informs the public that the U.S. government has a claim against all property, and any rights to property, of the taxpayer. This includes property owned at the time the notice of lien is filed and any acquired thereafter. A lien can affect a taxpayer's credit rating, so it is critical to arrange the payment of taxes as quickly as possible.

“Raising the lien threshold keeps pace with inflation and makes sense for the tax system,” Shulman said. “These changes mean tens of thousands of people won’t be burdened by liens, and this step will take place without significantly increasing the financial risk to the government.”

Tax Lien Withdrawals

The IRS will also modify procedures that will make it easier for taxpayers to obtain lien withdrawals.

Liens will now be withdrawn once full payment of taxes is made if the taxpayer requests it. The IRS has determined that this approach is in the best interest of the government.

In order to speed the withdrawal process, the IRS will also streamline its internal procedures to allow collection personnel to withdraw the liens.

Direct Debit Installment Agreements and Liens

The IRS is making other fundamental changes to liens in cases where taxpayers enter into a Direct Debit Installment Agreement (DDIA). For taxpayers with unpaid assessments of $25,000 or less, the IRS will now allow lien withdrawals under several scenarios:

• Lien withdrawals for taxpayers entering into a Direct Debit Installment Agreement.

• The IRS will withdraw a lien if a taxpayer on a regular Installment Agreement converts to a Direct Debit Installment Agreement.

• The IRS will also withdraw liens on existing Direct Debit Installment greements upon taxpayer request.

Liens will be withdrawn after a probationary period demonstrating that direct debit payments will be honored.

In addition, this lowers user fees and saves the government money from mailing monthly payment notices. Taxpayers can use the Online Payment Agreement application on IRS.gov to set-up with Direct Debit Installment Agreements.

“We are trying to minimize burden on taxpayers while collecting the proper amount of tax,” Shulman said. “We believe taking away taxpayer burden makes sense when a taxpayer has taken the proactive step of entering a direct debit agreement.”

Installment Agreements and Small Businesses

The IRS will also make streamlined Installment Agreements available to more small businesses. The payment program will raise the dollar limit to allow additional small businesses to participate.

Small businesses with $25,000 or less in unpaid tax can participate. Currently, only small businesses with under $10,000 in liabilities can participate. Small businesses will have 24 months to pay.

The streamlined Installment Agreements will be available for small businesses that file either as an individual or as a business. Small businesses with an unpaid assessment balance greater than $25,000 would qualify for the streamlined Installment Agreement if they pay down the balance to $25,000 or less.

Small businesses will need to enroll in a Direct Debit Installment Agreement to participate.

“Small businesses are an important part of the nation’s economy, and the IRS should help them when we can,” Shulman said, “By expanding payment options, we can help small businesses pay their tax bill while freeing up cash flow to keep funding their operations.”

Offers in Compromise

The IRS is also expanding a new streamlined Offer in Compromise (OIC) program to cover a larger group of struggling taxpayers.

This streamlined OIC is being expanded to allow taxpayers with annual incomes up to $100,000 to participate. In addition, participants must have tax liability of less than $50,000, doubling the current limit of $25,000 or less.

OICs are subject to acceptance based on legal requirements. An offer-in-compromise is an agreement between a taxpayer and the IRS that settles the taxpayer’s tax liabilities for less than the full amount owed. Generally, an offer will not be accepted if the IRS believes that the liability can be paid in full as a lump sum or through a payment agreement. The IRS looks at the taxpayer’s income and assets to make a determination regarding the taxpayer’s ability to pay.

Related Items:

• IRS Begins Tax Season 2009 with Steps to Help Financially Distressed Taxpayers; Promotes Credits, e-File Options (IR-2009-2)

• IRS Speeds Lien Relief for Homeowners Trying to Refinance, Sell (IR-2008-141)

Currently Non Collectible

2011-01-11T20:38:00.000-06:00

Many times a taxpayer cannot pay taxes that are owed. These taxpayers are in a hardship situation. Not only can they not pay the IRS, but they cannot pay their ordinary expenses. In addition, these taxpayers may have delinquent tax returns. In the past when a taxpayer was seeking currently non collectible status, the IRS required these taxpayers to file all delinquent tax returns. That has now changed. A taxpayer who has delinquent tax returns and is entitlted to currently non collectible status, ill not have to file their delinquent tax returns. See IRM 8.22.2.4.2

Taxpayer Advocate Annual Report to Congress

2011-01-10T10:46:00.000-06:00

The National Taxpayer Advocate has delivered her Annual Report to Congress. The Report focuses on Tax Reform, Collection Issues, and Implementation of Health Care Reform. See the Report here.

See also IR-2011-2, Jan. 5, 2011 here.
.

Why?

2011-01-03T10:27:00.000-06:00

Over the past few weeks I have kept notes on some of my contacts with the IRS, and I have questions. There are probably no answers to some of these questions. I would be interested in knowing what some of our readers have experienced.

Why Does Voice Mail Give You Only Eight Seconds to Leave a Message? In a recent call to an IRS number, the message was simple: “You have eight seconds to leave a message.” Obviously there was not enough time to even give my name and number, much less leave a message. I called back several times believing this was an error, but got the same message each time.

Why Do IRS Employees Not Provide an Alternate Number on Voice Mail? The voice mail recording provided by IRS employees on the majority of calls do not provide an alternate number or person to call.

Why When the IRS Calls Me Do I Have to Verify My Information? I do not understand why when the IRS calls a representative we have to go through a question and answer session about our CAF number, name, address, etc. It seems that this is a waste of everyone’s time.

Why When Talking to ACS and You Ask a Question Are You Placed on Hold? Many times when dealing with ACS on the phone we are placed on hold after asking a question. It seems like the IRS has to get approval before the question can be answered.

Why Do Representatives Receive So Many Forms and Notices? As a representative, when I receive notices from the IRS there are generally forms included. This seems like a waste of money. It would seem more efficient if the IRS would just refer to their website advising that the forms are available there. If the IRS is ceasing to send Form 1040, they should consider not including forms in letters to representatives.

Why Do Some Units of the IRS Not Understand Notices That Are Sent? Many times I have called the number on a notice or letter only to be told by the IRS person with whom I am speaking that they do not know what the letter means.

Why Does the IRS Not Give the Correct Number to Call on Its Notices? Recently I called the number on an IRS notice which reflected a large amount owed by the client. I was told by the first person I spoke with that their unit only handled cases up to $25,000. I was transferred to someone else who advised they also could not handle the case, and was again transferred to someone else.

Why Does the IRS Call at 9:00 p.m. and Leave a Message? Recently someone from the IRS left a message at my office at 9:00 p.m. and asked that the call be returned. Of course the call was not returned until the next day, at which time there was no one to speak with since I only got a voice mail recording.

Why are Calls to the IRS Not Returned? Many messages are left more than once before a call is returned. This is a good reason for all IRS voice mail recordings to have an alternate number to call.

Why Do We Not Get a Confirmation on CNC? Many collection cases are resolved over the phone with the IRS agreeing to classify the case as currently not collectible. However, the IRS is inconsistent as to whether they will send correspondence confirming a case has been classified as CNC.

Why Does ACS Refuse to Let Us Speak With a Manager? ACS refuses to let representatives speak with a manager. The response is they will have the manager call. The manager rarely or never calls. Mostly never.

Why Does the IRS Fail to Respond to Correspondence? Just like failure to respond to some phone calls, many letters written to the IRS do not receive a response. This requires additional time for the representative to resend the correspondence.

Why Can We Not Speak to IRS Employees Who Work From Home? I do not have a problem with IRS employees working from home. But if the IRS is going to allow this, there should be a phone number where the employee can actually be reached, rather than one at the IRS office.

Why Does the IRS Not Include the Enclosure it Refers to in Letters? We receive letters from the IRS that say a document is enclosed. However, in a number of cases nothing is enclosed. This causes phone calls to the IRS to determine what was supposed to be enclosed.

Why Do We Have to Wait So Long On the Phone? Calling the IRS can be frustrating in that in most cases we are on hold for a long period of time. The IRS should look at how American Express handles its incoming calls. There is rarely a wait.

Why Are Letters Dated After the Date We Receive Them? Often we receive a letter that is dated several days after it is received. Is there some reason the IRS cannot date a letter the date it is actually sent?

Why Do IRS Employees Not Read Letters Before They Are Sent? We have received letters from the IRS that make no sense. These are mostly form letters.

Why Does Appeals Not Have the Revenue Officer’s Files in a Collection Due Process Case? We are experiencing cases where the Revenue Officer’s files do not get to Appeals when a CDP request is made. This means that in most cases the financial information has to be recreated for Appeals.

Why When You Make a Call to the IRS and Are On Hold For a Long Time a Message Advises You to Call Back Later? It would be more efficient when calling the IRS if you were initially told to call later. We have experienced cases where after a long hold, we are finally told to call back later.

Why When Contacting the IRS Does it Feel Like Traveling the World - Philidelphia, Detroit, and New York? You may not get to take a real trip, but you do sometimes feel like you do when talking with the IRS. After being transferred to several different cities, there will finally be someone to talk with.

Why Does the IRS Not Use E-mail? I understand the concern of the IRS about security. However, I do not believe that e-mail is any less secure than a fax. Many times faxes are sent to a central fax machine where anyone can get the information. In this case, e-mail would be more secure.

The above is not intended to be critical of IRS personnel, but of the system. There are nice people in the IRS. Recently, after two hours of trying to speak with someone about a tax matter, I spoke to one of the nicest women I have ever talked to. She was very helpful.

IRS Appeals Conference

2010-09-11T20:38:00.000-05:00

IRS Appeals Conference

Tax Alliance Conference Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Only $40 Through 11/1/2010

ADDISON CONFERENCE CENTRE
15650 Addison Rd. Addison, TX 75001

Meet & Greet the decision makers! Hear both sides of the issues! Topics Include: Overview of Appeals; Preparing Effective Protests; Innocent Spouse Update; Offers In Compromise; Collection Due Process Workshop; Overview of Fast Track Settlement; Panel Discussion; Q&A

Register Now! Tax Alliance Conference

Price includes 6 hours of CPE, (MCLE pending) continental breakfast, and lunch!

Seating is limited, so be sure to register early!

For more details click here! Tax Alliance Conference

Lantz Issue on Appeal in Other Circuits

2010-06-08T14:26:00.000-05:00

The Lantz issue is on appeal in the 3rd and 2nd Circuits with a number of cases pending in the Tax Court.

Lantz Decision Reversed by the 7th Circuit

2010-06-08T14:08:00.001-05:00

The 7th Circuit today reversed the Tax Court decision in Lantz. Lantz held that there was not a two year rule for filing an innocent spouse claim under Section 6015(f) of the Code. The 7th Circuit opinion can be found here.

2009 Whistleblower Report Released

2010-05-07T08:43:00.000-05:00

The 2009 Whistleblower Report to Congress has been released and be found here.

IRS Publishes Cash Audit Techniques Guide

2010-04-21T10:00:00.000-05:00

The IRS has published its Cash Audit Techniques Guide to provide guidance for the examination of income in a cash intensive business. This guide will:

Provide background about Cash Intensive Businesses
Identify frequent and/or unique issues
Provide examination techniques
Supply applicable laws and court cases

The complete guide can be found here.

Things to Know If You Receive an IRS Notice

2010-04-20T14:24:00.000-05:00

IRS advises of tips on notices it sends to taxpayers. See the IRS Tax Tip 2010-73 here.

IRS Announces Change of Taxpayer Address Procedures

2010-04-20T14:20:00.000-05:00

The IRS has issue a new revenue procedure that explains how the Internal Revenue Service is informed of a change of address. When so informed, the IRS will update the taxpayer's address of record to the new address. The IRS uses the taxpayer's address of record for the various documents that are required to be sent to a taxpayer's "last known address" under the Internal Revenue Code and for refunds of overpayments of tax. Rev. Proc. 2001-18, 2001-1 C.B. 708, is superseded by this Revenue Procedure. Se the Rev. Proc. here.

Tax-exempt Organizations' Reporting Requirements

2010-04-08T14:39:00.001-05:00

The IRS posted a list of FAQs (updated 4/5/10) annual reporting requirements for exempt organizations. See the list here.

IRS Continues to Increase Oversight of Tax Return Preparers to Improve Compliance

2010-04-08T14:20:00.002-05:00

IRS Continues to Increase Oversight of Tax Return Preparers to Improve Compliance. See here for more.

Justice Department Highlights Tax Enforcement Results

2010-04-08T13:44:00.000-05:00

Department of Justice highlights it success. See the press release here.

Proposed Reg Issued Regarding Return Preparer PTINs

2010-03-25T08:53:00.002-05:00

The IRS has issued the first proposed regulations related to Return Preparer Review Implementation. REG-134235-08 outlines a mandatory requirement for return preparers to use Preparer Tax Identification Numbers (PTINs) and provides examples of the meaning of the term tax return preparer for the purposes of the IRC section 6109. See the proposed Regulation here.

Summary of Health Care

2010-03-24T08:45:00.000-05:00

House Speaker Pelosi has issued a summary of the health care reform act. The summary can be found here.

New IRS Program - Rapid Response Appeals Process

2010-03-22T14:18:00.000-05:00

The IRS is implementing a pilot program that provides new priority procedures for pyramiding in-business trust fund (IBTF) Collection Due Process (CDP) cases in Appeals. This program is referred to as the Rapid Response Appeals Process (RRAP). A description of the program can be found here.

Tax Court Denies Charitable Deduction

2010-03-17T15:03:00.000-05:00

In Friedman v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2010-45, the Tax Court denied the taxpayers claimed charitable contribution deductions for the donation of equipment. The Tax Court found that the taxpayers did not strictly comply with the substantiation requirements of Section 1.170A-13, Income Tax Regs. On the otherhand the taxpayers contend their documentation satisfied the substantial compliance doctrine according to Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32, 40-41 (1993). The Tax Court found that the taxpayers did not establish substantial compliance because they did not provide adequate descriptions of the equipment and did not identify the valuation methods used, the manner of acquisition, and the cost bases of the equipment.

The Tax Court further held that the taxpayers' documentation did not satisfy the requirement of Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code in that the taxpayers did not obtain contemporaneous written acknowledgments of the donations.

Penalties under Section 6662(a) of the Code were also imposed.

IRS Releases 2009 Data Book

2010-03-17T13:24:00.001-05:00

The Internal Revenue Service has announced the release of the 2009 IRS Data Book, an annual snapshot of agency activities for the fiscal year. You can view the Data Book here.

IRS Updates List of Dirty Dozen Tax Scams

2010-03-17T09:40:00.000-05:00

The Internal Revenue Service issued its 2010 "dirty dozen" list of tax scams, including schemes involving return preparer fraud, hiding income offshore and phishing. The list can be found here.

IRS Outlines Additional Steps to Assist Unemployed

2010-03-11T10:52:00.000-06:00

The Internal Revenue Service has announced several additional steps it is taking this tax season to help people having difficulties meeting their tax obligations because of unemployment or other financial problems. See the announcement here.

The steps include additional flexibility on offers in compromise for struggling taxpayers, a series of Saturday "open houses" offering taxpayers extra opportunities to work out tax problems face to face with the IRS, special outreach with partner groups to unemployed taxpayers and the availability of more information on a special section of the IRS Web site.

Taxpayers Cannot Rely On Preparer to Avoid Penalty

2010-02-19T07:38:00.002-06:00

Taxpayers met with their preparer with respect to their 2005 federal income tax return and gave the preparer financial documents, including a 2005 Form SSA-1099, Social Security Benefit Statement, indicating that they had received $21,445 of Social Security benefits in 2005. Petitioners did not give the preparer a 2005 Form 1099-DIV, Dividends and Distributions, indicating that they had received $216 of dividend income, or a 2005 Form 1099-INT, Interest Income,indicating that they had received $24 of interest income.

Subsection (a) of Section 6662 imposes an accuracy-related penalty of 20 percent of any underpayment that is attributable to causes specified in subsection (b). Among the causes justifying the imposition of the penalty is any substantial understatement of income tax as defined in Section 6662(d). The Section 6662(a) penalty is not imposed if a taxpayer can demonstrate (1) reasonable cause for the underpayment and (2) that the taxpayer acted in good faith with respect to the underpayment.

Reliance on the advice of a professional can give the taxpayer a defense of reasonable cause.

The Tax Court found that Taxpayers did not rely in good faith on their preparer’s advice because they did not examine their return before it was submitted to the IRS. See Estate of Edsel Stiel v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2009-278.

Most Litigated Tax Issues

2010-02-15T08:23:00.003-06:00

The National Taxpayer Advocate 2009 Annual Report to Congress list the following as the most litigated tax issues. You can find the report here.

1. Appeals from Collection Due Process (CDP) Hearings Under Internal Revenue Code Sections 6320 and 6330

2. Summons Enforcement Under Internal Revenue Code Sections 7602, 7604, and 7609

3. Trade or Business Expenses Under Internal Revenue Code Section 162 and Related Section

4. Gross Income Under Internal Revenue Code Section 61 and Related Sections

5. Accuracy-Related Penalty Under Internal Revenue Code Section 6662

6. Frivolous Issues Penalty Under Internal Revenue Code Section 6673 and Related Appellate-Level Sanctions

7. Civil Actions to Enforce Federal Tax Liens or to Subject Property to Payment of Tax Under Internal Revenue Code Section 7403

8. Failure to File Penalty Under Internal Revenue Code Section 6651(a)(1) and Estimated Tax Penalty Under Internal Revenue Code Section 6654

9. Family Status Issues Under Internal Revenue Code Sections 2, 24, 32, and 151

10. Relief from Joint and Several Liability Under Internal Revenue Code Section 6015

IRS Sends Letter To Preparers

2010-02-14T19:21:00.002-06:00

The Internal Revenue Service is taking a number of steps to contact paid tax return preparers to improve the accuracy and quality of filed tax returns and heighten awareness of preparer responsibilities. They are sending letters to and visiting a segment of the return preparer community to provide information on the kinds of errors they are seeing. This letter can be found here describes common errors made by taxpayers and return preparers and their general responsibilities as a return preparer. It is reported that preparers are being visited by Special Agents and Revenue Agents.

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

2010-02-08T10:35:00.000-06:00

The IRS has published an article titled The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments. The 83 page article can be found here and discusses various issues the IRS considers frivolous.

Remarks by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue

2010-01-29T09:44:00.000-06:00

The IRS has announcement a new schedule to be attached to a corporate tax return listing uncertain tax positions. See the remarks of the Commissioner here.

Pro Se Nurse Wins Against the IRS

2010-01-15T09:33:00.000-06:00

A nurse represented herself and won her case against the IRS. The Tax Court in Singleton-Clarke v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-182 found that the nurse's advanced degree did not qualify her for a new trade or business, and held that she could deduct her education expenses for 2005.

Top Ten Common mistakes for 1040X

2010-01-15T07:25:00.000-06:00

• Schedule A missing when change to itemized deductions. Correspondence is then necessary.

• No original signature (copy). Correspondence is then necessary.

• Schedule C not included when amending schedule C or it does not indicate which Taxpayer it is for when the return is Married Filing Jointly (MFJ). Correspondence is then necessary.

• Schedule EIC is not attached when EIC is amended. Correspondence is then necessary.

• TP does not indicate exemptions name and SSN/ITIN number in exemption section when adding or removing and exemption. Correspondence is then necessary.

• Taxpayer requests direct deposit of their amended refund or adds direct deposit information for their original refund, since direct deposit information cannot be added on an amended return, we must correspond.

• Form 5405 not attached when claiming the First-Time Homebuyer Credit.

• Signature is other then the taxpayer and no supporting documentation is attached or indicated. (i.e. Form 2848, Durable POA, parent for minor, etc)

• Missing schedules and/or forms for Line 7 credits. Correspondence is then necessary.

Other common mistakes:

• Taxpayer files Head of Household (HOH) with no exemptions and does not indicate Qualifying dependents (QND) name and/or SSN.

• Taxpayer removes an exemption but not Recovery Rebate Credit (RRC). This requires additional correspondence.

• TP does not indicate if a child is eligible for Child Tax Credit (CTC) but takes the credit or the reverse.

IRS Telephone Directory for Practitioners

2010-01-13T14:54:00.002-06:00

See this link for an IRS telephone directory for practitioners that list numbers for all states.

First Wednesday Tax Forum

2010-01-10T22:48:00.001-06:00

The next First Wednesday Tax Forum will actually be held on the second Wednesday, January 13, 2010. Special Agents Todd Norwood and Elisa Rodriguez of IRS Criminal Investigation will be speaking on Refund Fraud and Fraud Detection. This will be an interesting and informative presentation. As tax season arrives, learn what you need to know to protect yourself and your clients.

Requisite Knowledge and Experience: None is needed

Advance Preparation: None is needed.

This is an update presentation.

The presentation is lecture style.

The First Wednesday Tax Forum will meet from 7:30-9:10 AM at the University of Phoenix, Dallas/Ft. Worth Campus. The University of Phoenix Campus is located in Churchill Tower, 12400 Coit Road, Dallas, Texas. Park in the parking garage behind the building. Come to the front of the building on the first floor. Registration is $15 per course. CPAs and enrolled agents receive 2 hours of CPE credit. If you plan to attend, please send an e-mail to dawn@tjtaxlaw.com. Make checks payable to Townsend & Jones, L.L.P., and mail to 8100 Lomo Alto, Suite 238, Dallas, Texas 75225. Phone 214-696-2661.

National Taxpayer Advocate's 2009 Annual Report to Congress

2010-01-07T06:59:00.000-06:00

Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, has released her Annual Report. The report can be found here.

New The return preparer review final report is now available.

2010-01-07T06:55:00.001-06:00

The IRS has released it final report on return preparers and the report can be found here. The report contains recommendations for oversight of return preparers.

How to Audit Proof A Tax Return

2009-11-06T08:20:00.003-06:00

An article has appeared in Forbes on "Ten Ways to Audit Proof Your Tax Return". The articles advises one way is not to file electronically.

Taxpayer Cannot Rely on Google to Prove Reasonable Cause

2009-10-22T14:48:00.006-05:00

Good-faith reliance on advice from an independent, competent professional as to the tax treatment of an item may meet the reasonable cause requirement for abatement of penalties. The Tax Court in Woodard v. Commissioner did not accept Mr. Woodard's argument that his research on the Internet using the Google search engine provided him with reasonable cause for the position he took when filing his 2004 tax return.

Tax Court Rules Cancellation of Debt Not Income

2009-10-22T14:28:00.010-05:00

In the recent case of McCormick v Commissioner, the Tax Court held for the IRS to determine the amount of cancellation of indebtedness income properly attributed to the taxpayers, the Tax Court must determine the amount of the CitiFinancial and Chase debt that was definite and liquidated.

In this case, the Tax Court found that the IRS could not rely on the Forms 1099-C submitted by CitiFinancial and Chase as evidence of the amount of debt that was definite and liquidated. Section 6201(d) provides that in any court proceeding, if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income reported on an information return and has fully cooperated, the IRS shall have the burden of producing reasonable and probative information concerning the deficiency in addition to the information return. In this case the taxpyaers asserted reasonable disputes with respect to the amounts reported by CitiFinancial and Chase. The IRSfailed to produce reasonable and probative information independent of the third-party information returns. Thus, the Tax Court held for the taxpayers.

Who Is Being Convicted of Tax Crimes

2009-10-21T09:55:00.002-05:00

For those of you who may have an interest in who is being prosecuted for tax crimes here is a link from TIGTA with some interesting information.

Commissioner's Advice to Corporate Directors

2009-10-21T09:25:00.003-05:00

IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman addressed the National Associaton of Corporate Directors Governance Conference and gave them certain advice. You can see the Commissioner's remarks here.

Annual Report to Congress on the Whistleblower Statute

2009-10-19T10:32:00.005-05:00

The Department of the Treasury has published its annual report on the Whistleblower statute. The report can be found here.

Whistleblower Guidance from the IRS

2009-10-19T10:25:00.007-05:00

The IRS has published guidance to provide procedures for processing and examining referrals received from the Whistleblower’s Office (WBO) regarding IRC 7623(b). Due to a change to IRC 7623, there are now two types of Whistleblower informant claim cases:

IRC 7623(a) discretionary award cases, “A” cases, and
IRC 7623(b) mandatory award cases, “B” cases.

The guidance can be found here.

IRS Statistics of Income

2009-10-12T09:58:00.004-05:00

The IRS has published it 2009 Statistics of Income (SOI) Bulletin. This publication has a wide range of tables, articles, and data that describe and measure elements of the U.S. tax system. This publication is available here.

Tax Court Rejects Everyone is Doing It As Reasonable Cause Penalty Defense In Son-of-Boss case

2009-09-04T11:47:00.002-05:00

In 3k Investment Partners v. Commissioner; 133 T.C. No. 6 (9/3/09), the taxpayer, an "investor" in a Daugerdas / Jenkens deal, sought to assert this defense to a penalty and, in support of the defense, sought discovery from the IRS of all the Son-of-Boss opinions in its bowels or wherever. In his typical straight-forward fashion, Judge Thornton opined:

Petitioner alleges and respondent does not dispute that in connection with many Son-of-BOSS transactions, one or more law firms or accounting firms wrote opinion letters to the investors supporting the claimed tax treatment. Petitioner alleges, and respondent does not dispute, that respondent has a large number of these tax opinion letters. Petitioner contends: "The availability of a large number of law firms and accounting firms issuing tax opinion letters determining that so-called 'Son of Boss' transactions * * * would produce the tax results as reported by Petitioner on its subject tax return would bolster Petitioner's position that it had reasonable cause and that Petitioner acted in good faith." Similarly, at the hearing petitioner's counsel argued that "based upon the general consensus of national law firms across the country that were issuing tax opinion letters that were taking the same position as the Petitioner in my case was taking, I wanted to show that reasonable cause does exist to take the position that we took on the tax return."

Petitioner's argument appears to be a variant of the refrain, familiar to parents of teenagers, that "Everyone's doing it." For the same reason that this does not constitute reasonable cause for teenagers, it would not constitute reasonable cause for petitioner. Petitioner must establish the reasonableness of its position on the basis of the facts and merits of its own case. n6 See Avedisian v. Commissioner, supra ("each individual must rest on the validity of his own position under the applicable taxing provisions, independently of others"). The legal analysis, conclusions, and recommendations that some tax advisers may have given other taxpayers are irrelevant to the reasonableness of the positions the partnership took on its return. See P.T. & L. Constr. Co. v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 404, 414 (1974).

n6 We also reject any suggestion that the requested information, which appears to involve only a small subset of tax advisers, shows any "general consensus" of tax advisers regarding Son-of-BOSS transactions.

With a follow-up punch, the Court held that the opinions were not relevant or likely to lead to the discover of admissible evidence, as required by the discovery rules.

Finally, the court held that the opinions sought were in any event tax return information prohibited from disclosure under § 6103. The court held that redaction of taxpayer identifying information did not make it any the less tax return information subject to the strictures of § 6103. Reliance on cases dealing with § 6110 is misplaced because that code section specifically lifts the veil if § 6103, with appropriate redactions, for the types of IRS general legal interpretation documents that Congress said should be in the public domain once shorn, by redaction, of taxpayer identification information.

IRS Expands Use of Reported Interest on Mortgage Payments

2009-09-01T07:49:00.002-05:00

Banks and other mortgage lenders provide annual statements to the borrowers and the IRS of the mortgage interest they paid. The IRS can use the data to confirm the amount of an interest deduction claimed by the borrower. The data can also be used to identify potential nonfilers. The Wall Street Journal reports here that the IRS is now poised to use the data to identify discrepancies between the reported interest paid and a taxpayer's income.

Are Tax Collectors Your Friends?

2009-08-27T08:29:00.004-05:00

The Wall Street Journal has an article this morning here on tax collectors' use of various "friend" sites to gather information to assist in tax collection. The anecdotal instances discussed involved state tax collection, but "An Internal Revenue Service spokesman declined to say whether its agents use social-networking sites to pursue delinquent taxes or assist audits."

Commonly Asked Questions of Work Status

2009-08-21T13:07:00.005-05:00

The IRS has issued Notice 989 , "Commonly Asked Questions When IRS Determines Your Work Status is Employee". Interesting questions that relate to employee and independent contractor issues. You can see the notice here.

Legal Advice Issued to Program Managers

2009-08-21T12:56:00.003-05:00

The IRS has issued a list of legal advice, signed by attorneys in the National Office of the Office of Chief Counsel and issued to Internal Revenue Service personnel who are national program executives and managers. They are issued to assist IRS personnel in administering their programs by providing authoritative legal opinions on certain matters, such as industry-wide issues. See the list here.

Textron En Banc Decision -- Government Wins

2009-08-14T08:01:00.003-05:00

The First Circuit has held that tax accrual workpapers disclosed to the outside accountants preparing the audited financial statements are not subject to the work product privilege. The decision, rendered en banc in a 3 - 2 split by the full court, reverses the prior panel's decision (a 2 -1 split). The opinion can be viewed here.

Tax talking heads had proclaimed loudly and often about this case for a long time and will now have something new to fulminate about. Much of the practicing bar will see the decision as taking from them some of the magic they offer clients for high fees and thus will complain loudly. Such magic and the fees it produces, after all, is as much their entitlement as, say, welfare for the indigent.

I think this quote from the majority en banc decision pretty much sums it up:

Textron apparently thinks it is "unfair" for the government to have access to its spreadsheets, but tax collection is not a game. Underpaying taxes threatens the essential public interest in revenue collection. If a blueprint to Textron's possible improper deductions can be found in Textron's files, it is properly available to the government unless privileged.

And, of course, the court held these documents were not privileged.

It is Not My Income - Is That Form 1099 Correct

2009-08-11T13:10:00.003-05:00

The IRS matches third-party information reports with items reported on taxpayer’s tax returns. Typically this involves the IRS sending a CP2000 letter to a taxpayer advising that a W-2 or Form 1099 was not reported on the taxpayer’s tax return. We are now seeing many cases where in particularly Forms 1099 are being issued to taxpayers who did not work for the company shown on the Form 1099.

The United States Tax Court has recently addressed this issue in Martin v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-121, August 4, 2009. Pursuant to Section 7463(b), this decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

On June 21, 1999, Steed A. Martin, Taxpayer, purchased a 1988 Toyota 4-Runner automobile. He financed the automobile through Heritage Community Credit Union (Heritage) by entering into a "Simple Interest Motor Vehicle Contract and Security Agreement" indicating that the price was $12,360.48, of which $8,872.34 was being financed with Heritage. Taxpayer stopped making payments on his loan with Heritage during 2001, and Heritage "charged-off" and "canceled" the $6,704.92 outstanding principal of Taxpayer’s loan.

Taxpayer was notified by Heritage in 2002 that his automobile was going to be repossessed, and soon thereafter a person came to his residence to repossess the automobile. Taxpayer turned over the keys for the automobile, and it was placed on a truck and transported from the vicinity of Taxpayer’s residence. Taxpayer did not subsequently see or have access to the automobile. During 2005 Heritage issued a Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt, to Taxpayer reflecting the cancellation of Taxpayer’s debt of $6,704.92. That information was also communicated to the Internal Revenue Service. Taxpayers did not report the $6,704.92 in income for 2005, and Respondent made an adjustment for increased income due to cancellation of indebtedness. The records of Heritage reflect that Taxpayer’s automobile was assigned for repossession.

At some point Taxpayer stopped making payments on the loan and was advised that the automobile would be repossessed. The automobile, which Taxpayer believed had a value equal to the outstanding principal on the loan, was taken from Taxpayer during 2002. Heritage had charged off the loan in 2001, but sent Taxpayer a Form 1099-C in 2005 reflecting cancellation of indebtedness income in the amount of the outstanding balance of the loan.

The only evidence in the record that supports Rrespondent’s determination of cancellation of indebtedness income is the Form 1099-C Heritage issued.

Section 6201(d) provides that in any court proceeding, where a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income reported on an information return (such as a Form 1099) filed by a third party, the Commissioner may have the burden of producing reasonable and probative information concerning the deficiency in addition to information on the information return.

Taxpayer disputed the correctness of the information return. Taxpayer testified that the automobile was repossessed by Heritage at a time when it had a value equal to the outstanding debt. That would mean that Heritage had received an asset with sufficient value to substantially reduce or eliminate the outstanding debt and would call in question whether the Form 1099-C was correct.

The Tax Court found that Taxpayer effectively called into question the validity of the Form 1099-C, and Commissioner did not placed in evidence any information that would rebut Taxpayer’s testimony, which is also supported by documentary evidence in the record. Therefore, the Tax Court found in accord with Section 6201(d), the Commissioner is not able to rely solely upon the Form 1099-C in support of the determination that Taxpayer has cancellation of indebtedness income.

Generally, a taxpayer must include income from the discharge of indebtedness. See Section 61(a)(12); sec. 1.61-12(a). Where indebtedness is being discharged, the resulting income would equal the difference between the amount due on the obligation and the amount paid, if any, for the discharge. See, e.g., Cronin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-22. This principle derives from the seminal case of United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931), where the Supreme Court held that a taxpayer may realize income by paying an obligation at less than its face value.

Accordingly, income from cancellation of indebtedness would not include the entire amount of the outstanding debt if the creditor received payment or assets of value from the debtor. A cancellation of indebtedness generally produces income to the debtor equal to the difference between the amount due on the obligation and the amount paid for the discharge. If, however, no consideration is paid to or received by the creditor for the discharge, then the entire amount of the debt is considered income to the debtor. Section 61(a)(12).

The Tax Court accepted Taxpayer’s testimony on the value of the automobile, as an owner is presumed to know or have a good sense of the value of his property. There is no evidence in the record that is contrary to Taxpayer’s testimony. In addition, Taxpayer purchased the automobile during 1999 for $12,360.48. Two years later, when it was repossessed, a value of $6,704 would appear to be reasonable (one-half of its original value).

The Tax Court found under these circumstances, that the Form 1099-C has been refuted and discredited. Taxpayer showed that the debt was satisfied, and the Tax Court accordingly held that Taxpayer was not required to report cancellation of indebtedness income for 2005.

If there is any doubt that a taxpayer owes taxes as the result of an errouneous Form W-2 or Form1099, the taxpayershould challenge the IRS.

IRS Alerts Public to New Identity Theft Scams

2009-08-09T20:10:00.003-05:00

The Internal Revenue Service reminds consumers to avoid identity theft scams that use the IRS name, logo or Web site in an attempt to convince taxpayers that the scam is a genuine communication from the IRS. Scammers may use other federal agency names, such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury. For more information click here.

Should Cancellation of Credit Card Debt Be Cancellation of Debt Income?

2009-08-09T20:00:00.003-05:00

Should the cancellation of credit debt be treated as cancellation of debt income. For an article on this issue click here.

House Committee Approves Health Bill

2009-07-17T09:27:00.006-05:00

The House Committee on Ways and Means approves America’s Affordable Health Choices Act. For more click. See the Bill.

Taxpayers Held Liable for the Accuracy-Related Penalty

2009-07-17T08:00:00.016-05:00

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held a couple liable for the accuracy-related penalty under Section 6662 of the Internal Revenue Code. In Prudhomme v. Commissioner, the Court found that the Prudhommes could not avoid the penalty because they did not act in “good faith” and with “reasonable cause,” as required by Section 6664(c)(1). Generally, good faith and reasonable cause may exist when relying on an accountant to prepare a tax return. The Tax Court held that the Prudhommes did not meet this standard because they provided their accountants with insufficient information to prepare their tax return accurately and did not make a reasonable effort to assess their proper tax liability. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Tax Court.

The Tax Court found the Prudhommes’ reliance on their accountant was not reasonable, because they did not fully inform the accountant of all facets of their finances.

If a taxpayer relies on an expert, all facts and circumstances regarding whether that reliance was reasonable and in good faith, including the taxpayer’s education, sophistication and business experience, must be taken into account.

IRS Issues Highlights of 2008 Tax Changes

2009-07-15T07:25:00.005-05:00

The IRS has issued Publication 553, Highlights of 2008 Tax Changes. This publication highlights major tax law changes that take effect in 2008 and 2009. The seven chapters cover the following: (1) Tax Changes for Individuals; (2) Tax Changes for Businesses; (3) IRAs and Other Retirement Plans; (4) Estate and Gift Taxes; (5) Excise Taxes: (6) Foreign Issues; and (7) How To Get Tax Help.

Tax Court Again Disallows Unsubstantiated Expenses

2009-07-13T08:49:00.004-05:00

In Kyne v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2009-98 (June 25, 2009), the Tax Court has ruled in favor of the IRS disallowing unsubstantiated expenses. We are seeing more and more cases from audit to appeals to the courts where taxpayers are losing, if expenses taken as a deduction cannot be substantiated. It is a good time to remind clients to improve record keeping and make sure documentation exists to prove deductions.

National Taxpayer Advocate Submits Mid-Year Report to Congress

2009-07-13T08:37:00.009-05:00

National Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olson today delivered a report to Congress that identifies the priority issues the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate will address in the coming fiscal year. Among the key areas of focus will be working with the IRS to improve taxpayer services, enhancing IRS oversight of federal tax return preparers, improving the accessibility of the offer in compromise program, and working with the IRS to improve its ability to administer refundable tax credits effectively. See News Release IR-2009-63.

Among the key areas of focus for the Taxpayer Advocate will be working with the IRS (1) to improve taxpayer services, (2) enhancing IRS oversight of federal tax return preparers, (3) improving the accessibility of the offer in compromise program, and (4) working with the IRS to improve its ability to administer refundable tax credits effectively.

TIGTA Issues Trends in IRS Compliance Activities

2009-07-13T08:31:00.008-05:00

The Treasury Inspector for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has issued a report that presents statistical information and trend analyses of the data for Collection and Examination activities of the IRS. Click here to review the full report.

The Will of Michael Jackson

2009-07-01T17:33:00.005-05:00

So much hype about Michael Jackson. TaxProf Blog has published a copy of the will. See the will here.

Court declares Son of Boss Illegitimate

2009-06-21T16:03:00.006-05:00

In Clearmeadow Investments LLC v. United States, ___ Fed. Cl. ___ (2009), decided 6/19/2007 [I will link to the decision when posted on website], the Court of Federal Claims (Judge Allegra) uses the parent-son metaphor to call a Son-of-Boss transaction the illegitimate child of an illegitimate father, although some might question the timing and use of the metaphor immediately before Father's Day (today). The opinion is long and very good. But, you'll get the key points from the following introduction from the decision (although I question Judge Allegra's inference that Son-of-Boss transactions present a sexy legal issue):

"When pondering sexy legal issues," one commentator recently noted, "it is doubtful that tax law crosses the minds of many." Yet, once in a while (alright, a long while), a tax dispute bursts into the mainstream. Take, for example, the legal controversy swirling around the so-called "Son of BOSS" transactions -- the quoted phrase being short for "sales option bond strategy," the legatee of the "bond and option sales" or "BOSS" strategy. While this case involves a Son of BOSS transaction, perhaps it is best to start by examining the earlier BOSS strategy -- "qualis pater talis filius," as the Romans used to say.

The BOSS strategy employed a series of transactions seemingly to increase the tax basis of an asset that would eventually be sold, supposedly at a loss. In its simplest form, it worked like this:

• Two companies are set up by a promoter -- Company A and Company B.
• Company A buys a bond with a market value of $50.
• Taxpayer X buys the bond from Company A for $1,000,050. However, Taxpayer X pays only $50 in cash, with the remainder of the purchase price taking the form of a promissory note payable by Taxpayer X to Company A for $1 million due in twenty years. Taxpayer X claims that his adjusted tax basis in the bond is $1,000,050.
• Taxpayer X then sells the bond to Company B for $50. Because Taxpayer X claims a basis in the bond of $1,000,050 and sells it for only $50, he argues that he has incurred a $1 million loss, which he promptly deducts to offset income that would otherwise be subject to tax.

In the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 (the 2000 Renewal Act), Pub. L. No. 106554, § 309, 114 Stat. 2763A-587 to 638, Congress devitalized this strategy by modifying key provisions in the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) to prevent, in absolute terms, the increase in basis essential to generating the large loss deductions. n2 Even before the passage of the Act, however, tax planners had begun to direct their creative energies elsewhere, focusing, in particular, on the partnership provisions of the Code as a potential new engine for producing large tax losses.

Their efforts eventually led to the christening of the "Son of BOSS" strategy. Under this brainchild, the taxpayer typically would form a partnership and contribute to it an option he had purchased. The partnership would contemporaneously assume a second option that represented a liability of the taxpayer. The taxpayer would then claim that his basis in the partnership was increased by the cost of the purchased option, but not reduced by the partnership's assumption of the obligation. As in the BOSS transactions, this ultimately led the taxpayer to claim a sizable loss deduction when he sold either the partnership interest itself, or some asset whose tax basis was derivable therefrom. Though clothed in the partnership provisions of the Code, the Son of BOSS strategy shared a common aspiration with its forebear -- to generate large tax loss deductions with little in the way of capital outlays. And the Internal Revenue Service (the Service) reacted to the "son" much as it had to the "father" -- disallowing the claimed loss deductions and assessing a range of penalties.

That, in a nutshell, is what happened in the case sub judice, which is a partnership proceeding involving a Son of BOSS transaction, pending before the court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. After carefully considering the parties' briefs and oral argument, the court grants defendant's motion for summary judgment and denies plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. As will be described below, the court finds, as a matter of law, that the Son of BOSS transactions that led to the tax losses at issue did not, under the Code, generate the losses claimed and, at all events, lacked economic substance. It also holds that, aside from any defenses the individual partners may raise in later proceedings, the Service properly asserted the gross valuation overstatement penalty of section 6662 of the Code.

My only comment relates to Judge Allegra's "simplest form" illustration of the concept. I ask the readers to re-read the simplest form illustration. Judge Allegra describes nothing more or less than the exceedingly hokey -- and perhaps even fraudulent -- tax shelters of the late 1970s and early 1980s where all sorts of properties -- from paintings to plastic recylcing shelters -- were overvalued, purchased for the hyper-inflated values (usually with nonrecourse financing or some economic equivalent), and then purchaser-taxpayer or a flow-through entity claimed purchase price basis supported improper tax deductions. For an example of this type of earlier shelter, see Addington v. Commissioner, 205 F.3d 54 (2d. Cir. 2000).

Partner Level Adjustments without a Partnership TEFRA audit

2009-06-20T16:59:00.003-05:00

In Muruelo v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. No. 18, here, the Court held that partnership affected items which are more properly determined at the partner level could be the subject of a notice of deficiency to the partner even without a TEFRA audit proceeding at the partnership level. The affected items that could be determined at the partnership level were (1) a partner's at risk with respect to the partnership, (2) the 704(d) limitation on partnership loss allocations to the partner's basis in his or her partnership interest, and (3) the accuracy related penalty. (Note that some courts hold that the good faith defense to the accuracy related penalty may be asserted at the partnership level in some cases, but that does not gainsay its application normally at the partner level).

The general progress of partnership tax contests starts with the partnership level audit and is thereafter followed with the partner level adjustments and further proceedings, if any, as to matters more properly determined at the partnership level. This case reminds practitioners that step 1 -- the partnership audit -- does not have to occur first.

The case is a cryptic as to why the IRS started with the partner level notice of deficiency. The tiered partnership whose activity was at issue had invested in a tax shelter that was a subject of a grand jury proceeding. Hence, I speculate, the IRS may not have wanted to move civilly via a partnership TEFRA proceeding. Alternatively, the IRS may have just recently learned of this particular shelter investment. It is clear that that partnership's and the partner's normal statutes of limitations absent fraud were about to expire when the IRS issued the notice of deficiency to the taxpayer-partner. The expiration of the partner's statute of limitation is irrelevant provided the IRS timely starts the partnership TEFRA proceeding, but the IRS had not done that here. Hence, it looks like the IRS was not certain that it would be able to prove fraud at the partnership level so as to extend the partnership level statute of limitations (thus automatically extending the partner level period for flow-through adjustments) and, rather than putting the bottom-line tax at the partner level at risk, it issued a notice of deficiency to the partner to use overlapping tools to deny the loss directly at the partner level.

Two Cases on Tax Shelter Exception to FATP-7525 Privilege

2009-06-20T15:53:00.002-05:00

In Valero Energy Corp. v. United States, ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. 2009), available here, the Seventh Circuit blew the hopes of some taxpayers and professions that the tax shelter exception to the Federally Authorized Tax Practitioner ("FATP") privilege would apply only to mass-marketed, so called cookie-cutter tax shelters. Section 7525 confers the equivalent of attorney-client communications privilege for communications between a client and an FATP. SEction 7525(b)(2) excepts from the privilege "in connection with the promotion * * * in any tax shelter (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(C)(ii))." Valero argued that the word "promotion" -- interpreted both literally and with recourse to the legislative history -- should confine the application of the exception to widely promoted tax shelters and not to one-on-one tax advice for a specific client for a special situtation. The Seventh Circuit disagreed. The opinion is straight-forward, well-written and short. I feel that would disserve the reader by trying to summarize the opinion beyond its bottom-line holding.

I will provide a short quote where the Court gives useful background and analysis for the FATP privilege that should serve as a guide for practitioners desiring to protect client communications:

We begin by noting that there is no general accountant-client privilege. United States v. Frederick, 182 F.3d 496, 500 (7th Cir. 1999). In 1998, Congress provided a limited shield of confidentiality between a federally authorized tax practitioner and her client. This privilege is no broader than the existing attorney-client privilege. It merely extends the veil of confidentiality to federally authorized tax practitioners who have long been able to practice before the IRS, see 5 U.S.C. § 500(c); 31 C.F.R. § 10.3, to the same extent communications would be privileged if they were between a taxpayer and an attorney. 26 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(1) (privilege does not apply in criminal proceedings). Nothing in the statute "suggests that these nonlawyer practitioners are entitled to privilege when they are doing other than lawyers' work. . . ." Frederick, 182 F.3d at 502; see also United States v. BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802, 810 (7th Cir. 2003) (BDO II). Accounting advice, even if given by an attorney, is not privileged.

This means that the success of a claim of privilege depends on whether the advice given was general accounting advice or legal advice. Admittedly, the line between a lawyer's work and that of an accountant can be blurry, especially when it involves a large corporation like Valero seeking advice from a broad-based accounting firm like Arthur Anderson. But we have set some guideposts to help distinguish between the two. For starters, the preparation of tax returns is an accounting, not a legal service, therefore information transmitted so that it might be used on a tax return is not privileged. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 220 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000); Frederick, 182 F.3d at 500-01; United States v. Lawless, 709 F.2d 485, 487 (7th Cir. 1983). On the other side of the spectrum, communications about legal questions raised in litigation (or in anticipation of litigation) are privileged. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 220 F.3d at 571; Frederick, 182 F.3d at 502. Of course, there is a grey area between these two extremes, but to the extent documents are used for both preparing tax returns and litigation, they are not protected from the government's grasp. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 220 F.3d at 571; Frederick, 182 F.3d at 501. This circumscribed reading of the tax practitioner-client privilege is in sync with our general take on privileges, which we construe narrowly because they are in derogation of the search for truth. United States v. Evans, 113 F.3d 1457, 1461 (7th Cir. 1997).

I should also note to balance this discussion that the Tax Court recently gave a relatively taxpayer friendly application of the tax shelter exception to the FATP. In Countryside Limited Partnership v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. No. 17 (2009), here, the Tax Court held that, once the taxpayer establishes that the FATP privilege is applicable, the Government then bears the burden of showing that an exception -- there the tax shelter exception -- makes the privilege inapplicable. There, the long-time tax advisor merely responded to inquiries from the taxpayer and gave advice. The Tax Court held that the IRS had not established that these actions were a "promotion" of a tax shelter, reasoning:

Respondent has focused on Mr. Egan as "promoting the Countryside transactions." We read the conferees' statements quoted above as distinguishing tax advice given in the course of a relationship such as that between Mr. Egan and the Winn organization from the "promotion" of a client's participation in a tax shelter. There may be a point at which an FATP's actions cross the line, and will no longer be encompassed within the routine relationship between an FATP and his client and will amount to tax shelter promotion. Respondent has, however, failed to show us that Mr. Egan's communications with the Winn organization with respect to the partnership redemptions and associated transactions before us crossed that line. He rendered advice when asked for it; he counseled within his field of expertise; his tenure as an adviser to the Winn organization was long; and he retained no stake in his advice beyond his employer's right to bill hourly for his time. Respondent has failed to show us that he crossed the line from trusted adviser to promoter.

Relief from Joint and Several Liability - Two Year Rule Does Not Apply to Sec. 6015(f)

2009-06-09T17:54:00.003-05:00

IRM 25.15.3.4.4(1) has added a note before the other note: Effective 6-8-09, until further notice, the Service will not disallow claims as being untimely under IRC § 6015(f). The Request for Innocent Spouse Relief will be reviewed based on the other factors under IRC § 6015(f). The Request for Innocent Spouse Relief under IRC § 6015(b) and IRC § 6015(c) will continue to be disallowed if not timely filed. This follows the recent Tax Court Case, Lantz V. Commissioner, 132 T.C. No. 8 (April 7, 2009). The Tax Court has ruled that the two year rule does not apply to IRC § 6015(f).

IRS Launches Tax Return Preparer Review

2009-06-09T17:49:00.004-05:00

IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman has announced that by the end of 2009, he will propose a comprehensive set of recommendations to help the Internal Revenue Service better leverage the tax return preparer community with the twin goals of increasing taxpayer compliance and ensuring uniform and high ethical standards of conduct for tax preparers. For more see News Release IR-2009-57.

Interim Guidance On Return Preparer Penalty Procedures For Estate & Gift Preparer Penalty Cases

2009-06-09T17:44:00.003-05:00

The IRS has issued Interim Guidance On Return Preparer Penalty Procedures For Estate & Gift Preparer Penalty Cases. The guidance advises that during every examination, estate tax attorneys should determine if further consideration of return preparer penalties is necessary. This determination will be made based on oral testimony and/or written evidence during the examination process. For more detailed information see SBSE-04-0509-009.

Materials on Offshore Account and Entity Voluntary Disclosure (Including FBARs)

2009-06-06T15:13:00.001-05:00

Readers are reminded that the Voluntary Disclosure program for offshore accounts and entities must be implemented by September 23, 2009. Because of the time it takes to receive account documents and other information from offshore sources, persons desiring to enter the program must move promptly. For further information on the initiative, see the blogs on our sister site, the Federal Tax Crimes Blog here. This link will automatically update for blog items added in the future.

Persons having the required signatory or other authority over an offshore account anytime in 2008 must file the 2008 FBAR by 6/30/2009. For further information on this filing see here.

Tax Court Training Video

2009-06-02T07:05:00.001-05:00

The Tax Prof Blog has posted here the links to the Tax Court's new training video series. The series is particularly useful for taxpayers representing themselves in the Tax Court (referred to in the jargon as pro se taxpayers), but some tax professionals who do not practice regularly in the Tax Court may also find the videos useful.

Xilinx & Section 482's Arm's Length Standard

2009-06-01T11:07:00.003-05:00

On May 27, 2009, The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rendered the long-awaited opinion in Xilinx, Inc. v. Commissioner, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2009). The Court concluded that the "arm's length" test for the application of § 482 is not the ubiquitous standard that most of us thought it was. I think the court was wrong. Let me explain.

I, like most who have played around in this field, think that the arm's length standard was always the ultimate guide and that any specific rules as to methodology in the 482 regulations were simply ways of administering the arm's length standard in specific contexts. After all, the Regulations specifically state that "the standard to be applied in every case" is the arm's length standard. § 1.482-1(a)(b)(1). Yet, the Xilinx Court held that, although the arm's length standard may be the general benchmark for valid 482 adjustments, the IRS can by regulation change that benchmark even if it achieves a demonstrably non-arm's length result.

I do not doubt that the IRS has a great deal of authority to promulgate regulations that, under Chevron (not mentioned by the majority opinion but clearly in the background), will be the law so long as reasonable even when not commanded by the plain meaning of the statute being interpreted. So, you might ask, does the statute as interpreted not require the arm's length standard? The statute itself does no mention the arm's length standard. The statute merely says that the IRS may make the adjustment when it is "necessary in order to prevent evasion of taxes or clearly to reflect the income of any of such organizations, trades, or businesses." Evasion of taxes is a term of art in the tax area, generally meaning the willful intent to violate a known legal duty applicable in order to convict under Section 7201. But, evasion as a separate concept has no discernible meaning in § 482, so the courts have focused on the "clearly reflect income" standard in the text. What does clearly reflect income mean? It too is not self defining in this context, but the overwhelming body of law, including the IRS's own regulations, says it means the income that would be reflected in a transaction between parties dealing at arm's length -- the arm's length standard.

You might ask about the legislative history. It is sparse and unhelpful given that it was enacted in 1928 with early revenue statute predicates, a time when Congress was less wordy. I cover the sparse legislative history in my earlier article John A. Townsend, Reconciling Section 482 and the Nonrecognition Provisions, 50 Tax Lawyer 701, 702-705 (1997). Until Xilinx, the arm's length standard has become the standard for resolving transfer pricing issues where it really matters -- in cross-border contexts where our treaties uniformly adopt some variation of language that is interpreted to mean that the arm's length standard applies. (The Court discusses the treaty context, and I have discussed in more detail in John A. Townsend, Tax Treaty Interpretation, 55 Tax Law. 219 (2001).)

Readers will forgive me if I digress for a moment on the arm's length standard. Back in the old (real old) days while I was with DOJ Tax Appellate I briefed and argued Liberty Loan Corp. v. United States, 498 F.2d 225 (8th Cir. 1973). In that case, the taxpayer was a parent corporation with numerous consumer finance subsidiaries. The parent-taxpayer borrowed at 5.55% and re-lent to its subsidiaries much, if not most, of the cash the subsidiaries needed to lend in their consumer finance businesses. Each of the loans to the subsidiaries was reflected in separate lending documents. The taxpayer lent its profitable subsidiaries at a 5.75% rate and its unprofitable subsidiaries at a 0% rate. These two rate structures produced overall interest income to the parent-taxpayer at its cost of borrowing rate -- 5.5%, so the parent-taxpayer had neither income or loss at its level. The parties stipulated that, had the subsidiaries borrowed from a third party unrelated lender, they would each have paid a rate exceeding 5.75%. Exercising its authority under § 482 to adjust the 0% interest rate loans to 5% (a safe harbor rate) without adjusting the 5.75% interest rate loans. The 5.75% interest rate loans were not adjusted because they were within the "safe harbor" provided in the regulations. The parent-taxpayer objected, paid the tax and sued for refund. the parent-taxpayer won at the trial level. The district court treated the subsidiaries as a group borrower who, as a group but not as individual corporations, could borrow at the 5.5% rate, thus in effect making the transaction between the parent-taxpayer and the "group" at arm's length. The Government appealed to the Eight Circuit. The Government argued, that the no-interest loans could be adjusted to the safe harbor rate because that was an adjustment toward the actual arm's length rate (exceeding 5.75%) but could not adjust the 5.75% rate downward to mitigate the effect of the first adjustment because a downward adjustment of the 5.75% rate would impermissibly move the interest rate away from the arm's length rate stipulated to exceed 5.75%. The Government won the appeal. The Court of Appeals in Liberty Loan held:

Thus, it would have been contrary to the regulations for the Commissioner to balance out the transactions at 5% (or 5.55%) when the stipulated arm's length rate was in excess of 5.75%. This limitation on the offset provision logically follows when one remembers that the purpose of a § 482 adjustment is to more clearly reflect income. The upward adjustments to the no-interest loans do just that. Downward adjustments to the 5.75% loans, however, would have the effect of moving those loans even further away from the actual arm's length rate. In adjusting the no-interest loans upwards to 5%, the Commissioner therefore made the only adjustment he could.

In Xilinx, the court did exactly what the Government argued was impermissible in Liberty Loan -- i.e. it forced the taxpayer under the guise of the regulations to move the stipulated arm's length transfer price away from the arm's length standard. It is true that the court did that under what it perceived as authority of the IRS to require § 482 adjustments by regulation under Chevron-type notions (although the court does not refer to Chevron).

I think the dissent got this right.

Predicting Appellate Results from Quantity (Not Quality) of Questions

2009-05-25T13:08:00.004-05:00

The New York times today here has a very interesting article (here) addressing the thesis that: “The bottom line, as simple as it sounds, * * * is that the party that gets the most questions is likely to lose.” It is a short article and I recommend the reader link to it and read it in its entirety.

I decided to make a few brief comments based on my appellate experience while with the DOJ Tax Division Appellate Section in the early 1970s. My experience was before 3 judge panels that, in oral argument, functioned similarly to the way the Supreme Court works in oral argument. Hence, I observed the dynamics of oral argument and, even in some cases, understood them and applied them to my client's perceived advantage. My brief comments are:

1. To state the obvious, the quantity of questioning is not a perfect predictor (hence "likely" in an important qualifier). But quantity is more than just slightly statiscally significant (86% is quite good). Most of us would like odds that good in placing any type of bet (or just living life). See Leonard Mlodinow, The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives (2008) and Mlodinow's recent comment on the New Times Happy Days Blog.

2. The article suggests that justices often ask questions for which they already know the answer and are just using the question and answer to convince one or more other justices. Often, it does not matter whether the responsive answer is consistent with the questioning justice's perception of the right result. Even wrong answers can be an important teaching tool, as many of us learned as we participated in the Socratic method of teaching in law school.

3. While serving as an appellate attorney, I was aware of the dynamic in a general sense. By way of background, judges who read the briefs or have been briefed by their clerks, in most cases, have an idea of what they will hold before oral argument. Their minds can be changed (and I experienced one known such significant instance), but usually they go out as they came in. This comment is directed to the odds of changing a panel's mind, and is a different, but related, issue to predictability from the quantity of questions asked.

4. My personal experience is that, across the board, counsel for the party appealing (appellant) usually get more questions than counsel for the party not appealing (appellee). Keep in mind that the party appealing has to change the status quo and given the dynamics of systemic deference to the result below (whether to the jury or to the judge) (perhaps, heaven forbid, a form of inertia), I think that the party appealing is statistically more likely to lose, wholly independent of how many questions the panel asks. (This observation is consistent with the following observation in the article that, "If the two sides receive the same number of questions, the likelihood of reversal is 64 percent, which is in line with the usual probabilities; the court reverses more often than it affirms.") But the judge's perception of need to test whether that party should really lose, perhaps drive the dynamic of a larger quantity of questions.

5. Further dynamics are at issue in tax cases. The Government wins more far more times in taxpayer appeals in tax cases than it loses. In tax cases, taxpayers do not generally exercise the same restraint that the Government does in taking appeals which must be authorized by the Solicitor General; hence, the universe of taxpayer appeals present statistically more ill-advised -- unpersuasive -- appeals than the universe of Government appeals. Focusing on the opposite circumstance -- a Government appeal -- Government appeals are generally more meritorious because, in part, they are preceded by fairly rigorous review before the Solicitor General is persuaded to even authorize the appeal. I don't know the statistic, but I would be stunned if, statistically, the Government did not win significantly more of its appeals than the taxpayers win of their appeals. But, the Government on its appeal faces the same dynamic of trying to change the status quo, and thus the Government is bound to lose a number of its appeals, regardless of the rigorousness of the internal DOJ review process. The dynamic noted previously of deference will inevitably give some tilt to Court of Appeals' results in favor of affirmance rather than reversal.

6. I now provide some anecdotal experience based on the some of the preceding observations. On some taxpayer appeals where I perceived from the dynamics of the opening appellant argument the panel understood the issues and the Government would win, my appellee argument was simply to invite questions if the panel had any but otherwise to present no argument at all when the panel had no questions. (I usually flattered or pandered the panel by saying that I perceived from the panel's questions that they understood the issues in the case (just a euphemistic way of saying I thought the Government would win).) Almost invariably, the panel asked no questions and the Government won. Sometimes I varied this approach if the dynamics of the opening argument were generally favorable but I felt that only one or two points needed clarification. I would make those one or two points (once less than 30 seconds with no panel questions after a 25 minute appellant opening argument) and sit down. I developed the strategy to do this type of limited appellee oral argument after my first case with the Government -- a taxpayer appeal to the Second Circuit. After the taxpayer's counsel used all his time, I got up with my canned argument (that I had rehearsed with a panel from the Appellate Section and went, as canned, for about 15-18 minutes), but realized within three minutes that each member of the panel was (i) not paying a lot of attention to what I said and (ii) indeed was reading something that I quickly surmised or guessed or speculated was related to the next argument. I already knew from the court's questions on the opening argument that the Government would win, so I quickly (but not abruptly) closed my argument out, covering only the major outline. Perhaps 5 minutes out of a total permitted of 30 minutes. I speculate that the panel really appreciated that I did not further occupy their and our time (but I could be wrong if the panel had anticipated having that time to further prepare for the next argument). I don't think this approach would work in the Supreme Court, although I could imagine it working if the opening argument isolated some single limited issue that was concerning the justices and then only addressing that issue (provided of court that the issue for which the Supreme Court accepted certiorari was clearly understood).

7. On Government appeals, I approached it differently. I did not perceive a bias in the quantity of questions asked. Since the Government had the burden to persuade the court to change the status quo, I felt that I wanted questions from the court. I felt that, as attorney for the Government appellant, fewer questions meant loss. Of course, the Government lost some, perhaps most of the Government appeals I argued (I really did not keep count), and in those cases, overall, I am certain that I got more questions than counsel for the appellee. And, as I now recall it, in those successful Government appeals, the taxpayer's counsel got more questions from the panel than I did. So this observation is consistent with the statistic.

8. I offer one more observation in trying to use such statistics at the Supreme Court level to extrapolate conclusions about the dynamics of Courts of Appeals. Appeals to the Courts of Appeals are of right. The Courts of Appeals must hear and decide them. Appeals to the Supreme Court through the certiorari process are not appeals of right. The Supreme Court must affirmatively decide to hear the case and determine which issues it will hear. I perceive that the Courts of Appeals now are much more stringent in determining which cases justify oral argument than they were in the days I was doing appellate work on a daily basis. This can be a process with a dynamic not dissimilar to the Supreme Court's determining which cases it will hear. Presumably, Courts of Appeals are much more likely to hear oral argument in cases which, in the review process for determining which cases will be scheduled for oral argument, are identified as involving important issues (important in their own right or involving some potential conflict with other circuits or even the own circuit) for which oral argument can be useful in understanding the bases and ramifications of whatever action the Court of Appeals ultimately takes. In this sense, the designation for oral argument in the Court of Appeals suggests some statistical correlation with the likelihood for some form of reversal or some type of revision to the result or reasoning below (i.e., if the lower court action were clearly correct, oral argument is not needed), just as the Supreme Court's acceptance of certiorari suggests a more than random statistical possibility of reversal or revision of the result or reasoning below (as noted in the article, "the [Supreme] [C]ourt reverses more often than it affirms."). The Supreme Court's rigorous selection process makes it much more likely that the Court perceive an importance in correcting errors in result or reasoning below than it just pronouncing that the lower courts got it right in result and reasoning. That dynamic in the Courts of Appeals in assigning cases for oral argument is, I suspect, much less pronounced, simply because I don't think that the selection process is nearly so rigorous. But, having said that, there might be some positive correlation that would be shown with empirical analysis.

TEFRA Partnership Rules -- IRS Protective Position at Partner Level

2009-05-22T13:31:00.002-05:00

In Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2009-112, decided yesterday, at the IRS's request, the Tax Court held that the notice of deficiency issued by the Tax Court was invalid which meant that the Tax Court had no jurisdiction since a notice of deficiency is a jurisdictional prerequest in cases where the taxpayer petitions for redetermination. What's the deal? Why would the IRS urge the invalidity of its own notice of deficiency?

The reason is that the TEFRA partnership provisions, enacted in 1982, leave many issues undecided and the courts have been working through them ever since. In the meantime, as to at least some of these undecided issues, parties must take protective positions -- going through some formal steps even when they believe the steps should not apply given the purpose of the TEFRA patnership provisions. Although the Court's background discussion is somewhat cryptic as to the precise reasons for the protective position, that appears to be what happened in Bausch & Lomb and is certianly what happened in other cases where the unnecessary steps are less visible.

Extrapolating from the decision,. the following is probably the type of fact background for the IRS issuing a notice of deficiency. As readers will recall, the TEFRA provisions mandate unified audit and litigation for partnership items and affected items and then creates a special statute of limitations independent of the partners' statutes of limitations so that the unified result can be imposed on the parters. In lay terms, this requires the IRS to conduct a single partnership level audit and litigation of partnership items affecting a partnership and then, in a relatively summary assessment action, impose the results on the partners without concern for the individual partners' statutes of limitations.

The system is commendable in its purpose and most of the times serves that purpose of having a single proceeding rather than multiple and potentially inconsistent partner level proceedings as to the same items or items arising from the partnership. One of the rubs was likely presented in Bausch & Lomb. What should the IRS do when the IRS's position is that the partnership is a sham? One way of viewing a sham is that the partnership is to be disregarded altogether so that the TEFRA partnership proceedings simply never apply. This would mean that, if the IRS wants to actually collect related tax from the partners for items on their returns related to the sham partnership, the IRS must move against the partners via the notice of deficiency procedure rather than through the TEFRA rules. On the other hand, if the partnership even though a sham, is subject to the TEFRA partnership rules (administratively a good position given the purpose of the TEFRA partnership rules, even if not necessarily commanded by the explicit text of the statutory provisions) the IRS must proceed under the TEFRA provisions to issue a FPAA and then, failing litigation that would change the result, impose the results on the partners via a direct assessment. Notwithstanding logic that suggests that the latter -- proceeding under TEFRA -- is the right result, the statute does not literally foreclose a taxpayer argument that proceeding under TEFRA is the wrong result. The IRS in such cases might protectively proceed under both potential avenues -- i.e., (1) issue a notice of deficiency directly to the taxpayer even while the partnership level audit is going on and (ii) proceed under TEFRA to issue the FPAA and, upon final resolution fo the FPAA, impose the results on the partners as allowed the the TEFRA provisions.

That type of protective position appears to be what happened in Baush & Lomb. The IRS thinks the second avenue -- use of the TEFRA provisions -- is correct and thus that its protective notice of deficiency is not correct. The taxpayer for some reason wanted to litigate via the notice of deficiency rather than via the TEFRA procedures. The Tax Court accepted the IRS's position. That is the right result although we cannot provide a statutory analysis that necessarily commands that result. Let's just say that it is the only one that makes sense. Maybe Justice Scalia would decry it because the statute does not expressly command it, but he would be the only one that would have such qualms.

Hat tip to the Tax Professor List Serv.

IRS Reminds Small Tax-Exempt Organizations to File e-Postcards

2009-05-22T08:58:00.004-05:00

In certain cases small tax exempt organizations are required to file Form 990-N with the IRS. The IRS has issued a notice reminding these tax exempt organizations to file the form. The form was due by May 15. See the notice.

Interim Guidance from OPR for Sanctions

2009-05-20T15:15:00.004-05:00

See the interim guidance published by OPR with respect to sanctions of tax representatives. Click here for the guidance.

IRS Position on Burden of Proving Penalty on Failure to Pay Estimated Tax

2009-05-11T18:54:00.007-05:00

The IRS has issued a notice that describes procedures that should be followed in Tax Court cases in which the addition to the tax for failure to pay estimated tax under Section 6654 has been determined and the IRS has the burden of production under Section 7491(c). See IRS notice at this link.

IRS Frequently Asked Questions on Offshore Accounts

2009-05-11T18:42:00.004-05:00

The IRS has published a list of frequently asked questions on voluntary disclosure concerning offshore accounts. See the questions at this link.

Beware of Form 4180

2009-05-11T17:58:00.012-05:00

When companies get in a financial bind, the last debt they pay in some cases is employment taxes to the IRS. Many owners and officers of these companies do not know they can be personally liable for the trust fund portion of these taxes that are not paid to the IRS. Under Section 6672 a person can be personally liable for trust fund taxes if they can sign checks and pay other creditors while knowing the taxes are not being paid.

When the IRS does their investigation they require those they interview to complete Form 4180. This form is used to gather information from potentially responsible persons. In most cases a revenue officer will interview the potentially responsible person and complete the form and then ask that it be signed without allowing it to be read by the potentially responsible person.

We are seeing more and more cases where the potentially responsible person is afraid or not allowed to read the form. This form is basically a confession and a taxpayer should never, never sign one without reading it carefully and making any changes that are necessary.

The best way to handle this form is for the taxpayer's representative to help the taxpayer complete the form and give it to the IRS.

IRS Releases 2006 Corporate Tax Data

2009-05-09T16:14:00.004-05:00

The IRS report on 2006 corporate tax data report contains data by industry on assets, liabilities, receipts, deductions, net income, income subject to tax, tax, and credits. Data is also classified by size of total assets, by size of business receipts, and by size of income tax after credits. Other classifications include returns with net income, return types and other selected subjects. See the full report.

IRS Strategic Plan Released

2009-05-01T13:17:00.003-05:00

The IRS has released its strategic plan for 2009 to 2013. Click here to see the plan.

Is it So? Is the IRS Working with Taxpayers Who Owe?

2009-04-24T21:02:00.007-05:00

We have previously posted that Commissioner Shulman of the IRS stated that the IRS will work with taxpayers who cannot pay their taxes. Shulman said: "If they can't pay, they should attach a note" to the tax return, and either contact the IRS or wait for the agency to call." Click here to see full story.

In practice we are not seeing this. We are seeing the IRS serving levies and refusing to release them even though they are causing a hardship.

E-mail us with your thoughts and views about the IRS. Send you comments to larry@tjtaxlaw.com.

2009-04-24T08:23:00.023-05:00

Tax Alliance Conference

June 17 & 18, 2009

Optional Bootcamp

June 16, 2009

Choose Tax Preparation or Tax Controversy
Register by May 15, 2009 for $80.

IRS Stepping Up International Enforcement

2009-04-22T18:29:00.006-05:00

The IRS says it will improve tax administration to deal more effectively with the increase of globalization of individual and business taxpayers. This will be accomplished through Service wide cross-functional cooperation in addressing emerging international issues. The priority will be to improve voluntary compliance with the international tax provisions and to reduce the tax gap attributable to international transactions. See the Approach of the IRS.

2008 IRS Enforcement Statistics

2009-04-17T20:28:00.004-05:00

Interesting statistics on IRS enforcement activities in 2008. See the statistics.

Statistical Portrayal of CI Released

2009-04-15T19:54:00.010-05:00

The Treasury Inspector for Tax Administration has issued the Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Division’s Enforcement Activities for Fiscal Years 2000 Through 2008. This report presents the results of the Inspector's review of statistical information that reflects activities of the Criminal Investigation Division. The overall objective of this review was to provide statistical information and trend analyses for the Division’s enforcement activities for Fiscal Years (FY) 2000 through 2008.

Five-Year Anniversary of TaxProf Blog

2009-04-15T19:36:00.008-05:00

Congratulations to TaxProf Blog on its fifth anniversity. This is one of the best and most interesting tax blogs that exist. This is the first place many tax practitioners go each day to get an update and we are one of them. See some interesting facts about TaxProf Blog. Paul Caron does an excellent job in publishing this blog.

Beware of IRS’ 2009 “Dirty Dozen” Tax Scams

2009-04-15T19:28:00.004-05:00

The IRS has released what it is calling the "Dirty Dozen" or tax scams for 2009. As we all practice tax law there are more and more thing to consider. See IR-2009-41.

Tax Court Puts Another Nail in the Coffin of Helmer Tax Shelters

2009-04-13T08:59:00.004-05:00

In New Phoenix Sunrise Corp., et. al. v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. No. 9 (4/9/09), the Tax Court rejected a Helmer tax shelter claim. In Helmer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1975-160, at the IRS's request, the Court held that contingent liabilities contributed to a partnership do not enter the basis reduction calculation. Taking Helmer at face (taking anything at face is often dangerous in the tax context), tax shelter promoters created many variations of a gambit that would permit a large artificial basis upon which to claim a large artificial loss. New Phoenix involved one of the variations (the so-called digital option), masterminded (if that is the right word) by the Daugerdas-Jenkins & Gilchrist team.

In beginning its discussion of his conclusions, the Tax Court moved quickly to the core point:

We note at the outset that neither Mr. Wray, New Phoenix, nor Capital actually
suffered a $10 million economic loss during 2001. The loss claimed as a result
of the stepped-up basis in the Cisco stock was purely fictional.

From that core observation, the result surely followed:

Absent the benefit of the claimed tax loss, there was nothing but a cash flow that was negative for all relevant periods -- the "'hallmark[] of an economic sham'" as the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held. Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 435 F.3d at 602 (quoting Am. Elec. Power Co. v. United States, 326 F.3d 737, 742 (6th Cir. 2003). Such a deal lacks economic substance. Id. Because we find that the transaction at issue lacked economic substance, we do not consider Mr. Wray's and Capital's profit motive in entering into the transaction. Id. at 605; Rose v. Commissioner, 868 F.2d at 853; Illes v. Commissioner, 982 F.2d at 165. Pursuant to the aforementioned cases, the BLISS transaction must be ignored for Federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, the overstated loss claimed as a result of the sale of the CISCO stock is disregarded, as is the flowthrough loss from Olentangy Partners.

Not only did the Court disallow the loss, the Court also disallowed the attorneys fees the taxpayer incurred in undertaking the transaction. Then, piling at least penalty, if not insult, to the substantive injury, the Court made the following key points on penalties:

1. The 40% gross valuation / basis misstatement penalty applies, specifically rejecting the notion that, because the deductions were denied on the basis of lack of economic substance. In doing so, the Court distinguished and rejected Heasley v. Commissioner, 902 F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1990). Any notion derived from Heasley and its progeny that this penalty does not apply is quickly losing ground in the circuits.

2. The 20% substantial understatement of tax penalty applies. The Court found that the position lacked substantial authority and that the transaction was a tax shelter. Returning to his opening theme, The Court quoted Jade Trading, LLC v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 11, 58 as follows: "At bottom, the fictional nature of the transaction and its lack of economic reality outweigh Helmer in the substantial authority assessment."

3. The 20% negligence and intentional disregard penalty applies. The taxpayer urged in effect that Helmer and its progeny were substantial authority, and that authority had not been eroded below reasonable basis. In so holding, the Court noted that the IRS had already issued a statement of its position in Notice 2000-44 on Helmer and the taxpayer did not seek independent advice.

4. The taxpayer did not have reasonable cause and good faith for all the obvious reasons and some special twists unique to the facts.

5. Important to the penalty holdings was Jenkins & Gilchrist's clear conflict of interest that the taxpayer simply chose to ignore, thus eroding the reasonableness of reliance of the tax shelter opinion.

6. These penalties may not be stacked. Accordingly, the 40% penalty applies to the portion of the underlying tax attributable to the basis overstatement, but 20% penalty (either substantial understatement or negligence) applies to the balance.

Altogether, given the shift in the winds and prior precedents, this is not an altogether surprising opinion. Players in this area should note that interest on these penalties apply from the date the tax is due, so the cumulative cost of the tax, the penalties and the interest can be quite substantial.

TEFRA Tax Matters Partner Consents to Extend the Statute of Limitations

2009-04-10T14:40:00.001-05:00

In United States v. Martinez, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. 2009), decided 4/3/09, the Fifth Circuit held that actions taken by the tax matters partner in a TEFRA partnership were not ineffective to toll the statute of limitations because of an alleged disabling conflict between the tax matters partner and the other partners. The specific actions involved executing consents to extend the statute of limitations and filing a Tax Court proceeding. Under the TEFRA scheme, both of these actions result in the extension of the statute of limitations at the partnership level and thus extension of the statute of limitations for the TEFRA partnership adjustments at the individual partner level.

The Fifth Circuit distinguished an earlier Second Circuit case which had found a disqualifying conflict between the tax matters partner and the partners that made it unreasonable and inappropriate for the IRS to rely upon consents given by the tax matters partner. The Fifth Circuit concluded that (i), unlike the facts in Transpac Drilling, the IRS had not sought consents from the partners and been denied the consents, (ii) the IRS did not have a pending criminal investigation against the tax matters partner, (iii) the tax matters partner’s request for a quid pro quo via relief from the preparer penalties was not disabling because the IRS had already determined not to seek the penalty, and (iv), although the IRS believed the tax matters partner was dishonest, that alone did not create a per se conflict between his interests and the limited partners’ interests sufficient to put the IRS' reliance unreasonable under the circumstances.

A Loser on Avoiding the 6 Year Statute for 25% Omissions

2009-04-09T14:15:00.003-05:00

Our readers will recall that Section 6501(e)(1)(A) gives the IRS a six year statute for a “substantial omission” – defined as an omission from gross income in an amount exceeding 25% of the amount of gross income stated in the return. An exception to this extended statute of limitations is provided if the omitted income is disclosed on the return even though it is not included in gross income on the return.

Consider this discussion from Benson v. Commissioner, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (9th Cir. 2009) where there was a 25% omission and no disclosure:

The Bensons also argue that Colony can be read to preclude the application of the extended limitations period because the Commissioner was able to discover the unreported income, despite their omissions. For this proposition, the Bensons cite the Court's language stating that the extended limitations period was meant to give the Commissioner additional time to "investigate tax returns in cases where, because of a taxpayer's omission to report some taxable item, the Commissioner is at a special disadvantage in detecting errors." Colony, 357 U.S. at 36. The Bensons argue that the Commissioner was at no such special disadvantage here, as evidenced by the fact that the Commissioner actually detected the errors, and therefore the six-year period should not apply. However, the Supreme Court's gloss on the statutory language does not alter the statute's plain language, which simply provides that the Commissioner is afforded extra time whenever a taxpayer “omits” a certain amount from his or her gross income. 26 U.S.C. § 6501(e)(1)(A). The Bensons omitted the constructive dividends from their tax returns.

The taxpayer’s argument was, of course, circular. If the IRS did not discover the omission, then the statute was six years but would be meaningless because the IRS did not discover the omission even in the six years. If the IRS did discover it in the six year period, then the six year period would not apply because the IRS discovered it.

So the question is Shakespearean - to disclose or not to disclose. For taxpayers who pay close attention to odds (viewing tax reporting like gambling), disclosing solely to avoid a six year limitations period is not generally a recommended option. Providing that the taxpayer is reasonably certain he or she can avoid civil and criminal penalties for the omission, the taxpayer may want to take the risks involved in having a six year rather than a three year statute of limitations. The IRS hardly ever commences audits of returns that are over 2 ½ years old anyway, so that the additional three year risk may not be that great. Thus, for each year during the first three years when the statute is open under the general rule, the odds of an IRS audit of the return are far greater than in the succeeding three years (Years 4 through 6). Nevertheless, even with the decreased odds in the “out years,” the IRS will sometimes stumble upon an out year problem while auditing years within the normal statute of limitations and will seek to invoke § 6501(e). And, of course, a disclosure will likely eliminate the far worse risk than a 6 year statute of limitations – a criminal investigation and prosecution.

Tax Court Invalidates Two Year Rule for Innocent Spouse Relief

2009-04-08T08:50:00.006-05:00

In the past the IRS has contended that someone asking for innocent spouse relief under Section 6015(f) of the Internal Revenue Code would have to file for innocent spouse relief within two years of the first collection action taken by the IRS. The IRS has consistently disallowed claims that were not filed within this two year period.

In the case of Lantz v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. No. 8 (Apr. 7, 2009), the Tax Court has held that the two year rule imposed by the Regulation Section 1-6015-5(b)(1) is invalid. If request for innocent spouse relief has been denied by the IRS based on the two year rule, it should be requested again.